How irradiated are you?

[Andy Farrant]

In Derbyshire it is both the Carboniferous limestones and the Bowland (formerly Edale) Shale which is uraniferous. The black shales containing 5-10 mg/kg U, whilst the basal mudstones in the Chapel en le Frith area have 10-60 mg/kg-1 U. The Northampton Sand is of Jurassic age and does not occur in Derbyshire. The sandbanks in the Peak caves are derived from the surrounding Namurian sandstones.

See https://files.core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18619948.pdf

 

[ChrisB]

Has anyone tried establishing whether or not cavers have higher or lower levels of lung cancer than the general population? There must be so many variables I imagine it would be very difficult to establish one way or the other. And would anyone be that bothered (unless it was a massively greater risk)? My view of caving at the time when radon loomed over the horizon was that the health and fitness benefits far outweighed anything else so I wasn't going to worry.

Indeed, too many variables and not really a big risk relative to anything else, which is why it's not a problem for recreational cavers who are legally allowed to assess their own risks. But anyone working in a cave is subject to legal requirements (Ionising Radiation Regulations, if I remember right) which are very pessimistic. That's because of (a) the difficulty of drawing sensible conclusions from the statistics, which means taking the pessimistic view of all the uncertainties and (b) the legislator's view than anything to do with radiation has to be pessimistic because people are frightened of it.

 

[Cantclimbtom]

There is some Uraninite around particularly in the Castleton to Winnats kind of area.

https://www.mindat.org/locentry-629297.html

I think I heard back in the past (1950s?) there was a review of whether there was enough to make it worthwhile extraction either there or in any of the Fluor mines (it can associate with fluorspar), but there wasn't enough to be worthwhile

 

[amw]

UKradon - UK maps of radon

www.ukradon.org

 

[2xw]

Has anyone tried establishing whether or not cavers have higher or lower levels of lung cancer than the general population? There must be so many variables I imagine it would be very difficult to establish one way or the other. And would anyone be that bothered (unless it was a massively greater risk)? My view of caving at the time when radon loomed over the horizon was that the health and fitness benefits far outweighed anything else so I wasn't going to worry.

As you and others have noted, there's really too low a population and too high levels of confounding variables.

Anecdotally, a few cavers have died of lung cancer without ever having smoked. But around 15% of lung cancer affects non smokers anyways, and frequently, whilst those cavers never smoked, they will have spent time in second hand smoke filled pubs, smog filled cities, radon filled homes in the peak district, ect.

I believe the radon risk to cavers is real but overblown (and for professionals, regulatory). I'm pretty sure an hour in Giants works out as the same exposure as 9 hours in my mums house, so I've stopped visiting so I can go caving